On 18 May 2015 at 12:00, Ola Liljedahl <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am prototyping inter-process communication (message passing), primarily > intended for communication between control and data plane applications. > > The linux-generic implementation is based on pktio (a new type > ODP_PKTIO_TYPE_IPC) and messages are packets, much like Ethernet frames (48 > bits destination "address", 48 bits source address, 32 bits message type > followed by user defined payload). > > Originally I intended to only see IPC as a form of pktio (on an internal > network between applications on the same host). But I need to add a few > functions (e.g. to resolve process "address" by name and to monitor > processes should they go away). I briefly considered adding these calls to > packet_io.h but then instead created a new file ipc.h. I was thinking that > perhaps the IPC API should be separate from packet_io even if the > implementation is not. > > So the basic question is whether IPC/message passing is a completely > separate API or just a different type of packet IO (doing something similar > to what the loopback device support did). Comments on this? > > -- Ola > > > Hello Ola, it looks like you need additional pktio params. I.e. to set dst and src address to outgoing packets. But it's not very clear why that can't go to application and we need separate API for that. It looks like your solution is good for odp helper (allocate more headroom, set dst and src and blast packet). Thank you, Maxim. > _______________________________________________ > lng-odp mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp > >
_______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
